ISSN: 2278-3369
International Journal of Advances in Management and Economics
Available online at
www.managementjournal.info
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Relationship between Adaptation, Trust and Positioning Advantage
through Relationship Value
Irsic M*
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Maribor, Slovenia.
*Corresponding Author: E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
In the follwing research paper in progress, the authors investigate the relationship between adaptation and trust as two possible behavioural responses of organizations in B2B relationships, and the positioning advantage through relationship value by the method of ISM validation (Interpretive Structural Modelling framework). It is based on qualitative research and has been used in order to prove the analysed relationships as well as to generate research hypothesis for further quantitative investigation. The results of qualitative research in this paper have indicated that adaptation, trust and relationship value are the antecedents of the positioning advantage of the organizations in B2B relationship.
Keywords: Relationship orientation, Adaptation, trust, Relationship value, Positioning advantage, ISM framework.
Introduction
Many researchers and managers support the
thesis that one of the key goals of marketing is to
build and sustain strong long-term relationships
[1-7].
Relationship marketing, as a process-oriented
approach to customer management in a
meaningful way, is understood as promise
management, as follows: “Relationship marketing
is to identify and establish, maintain and
enhance, and when necessary terminate
relationships with customers (and other parties)
so that objectives regarding economic and other
variables of all parties are met. This is achieved
through a mutual making and fulfilment of
promises [8]. Relationship marketing investments
build
strong,
more
trusting
customer
relationships [9], improve financial and market
performance of the organizations [10], [11-12],
and [13], as well as they are recognized as an
important source of organization’s competitive
advantage [14], [11], [1], and [15].
Many researchers have recognized that the
intensity of relationship between different
relational variables and constructs as well as the
outcome of specific relationship depends on
moderating and mediating role of some other
variables, constructs or characteristics of the
organization (for example: the characteristic of
governance,
creativity,
business
strategy,
relational capital, type of industry, type of
organization, i.e. supplier, consumer, distributor
etc., size of organization, type of connections,
cultural differences, learning and selling
behaviour etc.) [16], [17], [11], [1], [18], [13], [19],
and [20].
To advance this overall research stream, we build
a research model with two antecedents’
constructs: adaptation and trust as prevailing
relationship
variables,
elements
and
characteristics of relationship orientation of the
organization on one side and the positioning
advantage of the organization as an outcome
(consequence, result) of the relationship on the
other side. We posit that adaptation and trust
affect the level of positioning advantage of the
organization. Since there are many other
variables, which determine the intensity of such
influence, we put the relationship value into
moderating role between above mentioned
constructs. Therefore we measure direct and
indirect (through relationship value) performance
effect of adaptation and trust on positioning
advantage of the organization (Fig. 1).
ISM can be used for identifying and summarizing
relationships among specific variables, which
define a problem or an issue. It provides us a
means by which order and direction can be
imposed on the complexity of such variables [23].
Based on the above framework we will propose
the research hypotheses which will be empirically
tested in the second phase of our research which
follows and is not included in this paper in
progress.
Fig. 1: Structural model of adaptation, trust, relationship value, and positioning advantage
Theoretical Background
Relationship Orientation
Relationship orientation is a desire of an
organization to engage in a strong relationship
with a current or potential partner to conduct a
specific exchange [48]. In the literature, there
exist many theories about prevailing factors (as
antecedents),
which
may
contribute
to
organization's desire for a relationship: value to
customer, relative dependence, industry norms,
customers' philosophy of doing business [24],
dependence, dynamism, complexity of purchase,
importance of product [25], product category
involvement
[3],
dependence,
uncertainty,
exchange efficiency, social satisfaction [7],
dependence,
age,
flexibility,
continuity
expectations, relationship quality [26], relational
proclivity [27], transaction-specific investments,
dependence [28], uncertainty [29], industry
relational norms, relational-centric reward
systems,
salesperson
competence,
product
dependence [2].
Relationship
orientation,
accordingly,
may
generate positive or negative organizations’
behavioural responses: trust, enhancing level of
adaptation, opportunism etc.). Therefore, we
conceptualize and operationalize the constructs of
organization’s adaptation and trust, i.e. two
possible positive behavioural responses of the
organization in the relationship orientation
process (as antecedents) in order to measure their
effect on competitive advantage of the
organization directly as well as through
relationship value, created by organizations in the
relational exchange.
Adaptation
Adaptation is a specific form of cooperation
between the participants in the relational
exchange. It is a process, where organizations
adjust their actors, resources and activities in the
organisational and individual level to those of the
organizations they cooperate with, and to the
changes in the business environment [30].
Adaptation is the concept that was introduced
already in the early IMP studies [31], [32]. The
seminal research focusing particularly on
adaptation between organizations was conducted
by Hallen et al. [33]. They investigated how
adaptations are associated with the power
balance in the relationship.
Further, there were many other research focuses
on adaptation, as follows: investigation of forces
driving adaptive behaviour in buyer-supplier
relationships [34], a role of trust and adaptation
in relational contracting [35], the influence of
adaptation on contractual agreements and
relational social norms [36], a role of adaptation
in the process of retaining business customers
[37], exploration of trust and commitment within
the environmental adaptation process as well as
about the process of adaptation as a series of
events, activities and stages, and the influence of
managers [38], analyses of connection between
adaptation at the supplier-customer relationship
level, marketing level, and business strategy level
[39],
and
investigations
about
supplier’s
adaptation towards a multinational buyer in a
supply network [40].
Trust
Trust is being discussed as an important
moderator in the relationship marketing
literature [6], [30], and [9], and an essential
ingredient for successful relationships [7]. Every
Relationship orientation (V1)Adaptation (V2) Trust (V3)
Relationship value (V4)
Costs of relationship (V5)
Relationship benefits (V6)
Positioning advantage (V7)
Product-based (V8)
Service-based (V9)
Price-based (V10) Cost-based (V11)
alliance is based on the thesis that organizations
must often “cooperate to compete” [9]. Therefore,
alliances
characterized
by
effective
communication
generate
trust
between
organizations, which promotes cooperation [41].
Although there is not any universally accepted
scholarly definition of this concept, we can define
trust as “a belief by one party in a relationship
that the other party will not act against his or her
interests, where this belief is held without undue
doubt or suspicion and in the absence of detailed
information about the actions of the other party”
[43-43].
In our research we have used the elements of
trust
from
the
relationship
atmosphere
dimensions model suggested by Wong, Wilkinson
and Young [15].
Relationship Value
Traditional academic and managerial view on
conceptualization of value has been linked with
the main goal of marketing which was to create
exchange of goods and services for money or
equivalent [44].
Competitive advantage of the organization comes
from the ability to give target customers an offer
with more perceived value than competitors’ offer
[45]. This perceived value consists of three
elements: perceived benefits of the product minus
both the product price and the costs of owning it
[46]. The concept of customer-perceived value has
become a matter of increasing concern in the
marketing literature as it becomes imperative for
suppliers to offer buyers in competitive markets
what they want if they are to effectively generate
profitable business [47].
The relationship value concept based on
service-dominant logic (S-DL) focused on the co-creation
of
value
through
inter-linked
resources,
engagements and actors. The main point of this
concept is that value is not created by exchange,
but in joint co-creation and demonstrated as
value-in-use (proposition of value), i.e. it is
created between parties [48] or even in the
interaction process of both focal dyads and wider
network structures [49], [46].
In our research we understand the concept of
relationship value as an aggregate measure for
relationship outputs [50] and define it as the sum
of the benefits and cost reductions generated in
the relational exchange with business partner
[51].
Competitive Advantage and Positioning
Advantage
The role of relationship marketing in explaining
business performance of the organizations has
been attracted by many scholars over the past
three decades. They have considerably enhanced
conceptual understanding of the role of
relationship marketing in enabling organizations
to create and sustain competitive advantage. It is
commonly accepted that competitive advantage of
the particular organization is being direct
antecedent of business performance of the
organization [52-53].
There were a lot of theories and models in
strategic management and strategic marketing in
the past thirty-five years that have been
appearing until now, which explain different
views on competitive advantage of the
organizations and consequently on their business
performance:
structure-conduct-performance
(SCP) paradigm views [54], [50], resource-based
view (RBV) framework [55], dynamic capabilities
(DC) theory [56], competence approach [57],
market orientation view (MOV) theory [58-59]
value chain based view (VBV) theory, and
relational approach [59].
Integration of RBV theory, competence approach
and relational approach has been made in
“resource-advantage” (R-A) theory, which has
been introduced by Hunt [60] and Hunt and
Morgan [61]. R-A theory views organizations as
“combiners of heterogeneous and imperfectly
mobile resources-which are the fundamental tenet
of resource-based view. Suggesting by Hunt and
Morgan [61], an advantage of using R-A theory is
that, instead of using “competitive advantage”
authors define a positional advantage as a
relative value actually delivered to target
markets, which is a result of the organization’s
marketing strategy decision implementation
efforts, and the cost of accomplishing this to the
organization.
It has been viewed across a number of different
value and cost dimensions as follows:
product-based, service-product-based, price-product-based, cost-product-based,
image-based,
delivery-based
positional
advantages.
ISM Framework Validation
As we have suggested in our theoretical research
model (see Fig. 1) we have defined 13 groups of
variables and the possible relations between them
based on previous literature review and with
support of a group of five experts: three top
managers have been selected from the large
Slovenian companies, i.e. companies with more
than 500 employees, and two university
professors of marketing and management from
University of Maribor and University of Ljubljana
with relevant knowledge, skills, and background
on the base of brain storming.
After that, five separate in-depth interviews with
the group of experts have been implemented. In
the process of interviewing, the pair-wise
relationships among the variables have been
indicated. The result of the interviews has
answered on two important questions: whether
and how the suggested and presented variables
are related (see Tab. 1). On the basis of the
received answers from the experts (almost all
answers, received from the experts, have been
very similar), an overall structure is extracted
from the complex set of variables.
A Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM) has
been developed then for groups of variables in
which the pair-wise relationships between any
two groups of variables (a and b) have been
indicated (Tab. 1). Suggested by Srivastava and
Singh [23], four symbols are used to denote the
direction of relationship between the groups of
variables:
V: a is related to b but b is not related to a.
A: a is not related to b but b is related to a.
X: a and b both are related to each other.
O: a and b both are not related to each other.
Table 1: Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM) Groups of variables b
Groups of variables a 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
1.Relationship orientation V V V V V V V V V V A A 2. Adaptation V V V V V V V V V X A
3. Trust V V V V V V V V V X 4. Relationship value V V V V V V V A A
5.Costs of relationship V V V V V V V O 6.Relationship benefits V V V V V V V
7.Positional advantage A A A A A A 8. Product-based PA O O O O O 9. Service-based PA O O O O
10. Price-based PA O O O 11. Cost-based PA O O
12. Image-based PA O 13.Delivery-based PA
* PA-Positional advantage
Next, the SSIM is transformed into a binary
matrix, called the reach ability matrix (Tab. 2) by
substituting V, A, X and O by 1 and 0 as per the
case following the below suggested rules:
(a) If a is related to b but b is not related to a, then a b entry becomes 1, b a entry becomes 0.
(b) If a is not related to b but b is related to a, then a b entry becomes 0, b a entry becomes 1.
(c) If a and b both are related to each other, then a b entry becomes 1, b a entry becomes 1.
(d) If a and b both are not related to each other, then a b entry becomes 0, b a entry becomes 0.
Suggested by Srivastava and Singh [23], a
reachability matrix is checked for transitivity.
The transitivity of the contextual relation is a
basic assumption made in ISM. It states that if a
variable A is related to B and B is related to C,
then A is necessarily related to C. The driving
power of a particular variable is the total number
of variables (including itself ) which it may help to
achieve. The dependence is the total number of
variables which may help in achieving it.
Tab. 2: Reachability matrix Groups of
variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Driver power
V1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 V2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 V3 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 V4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 V5 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 V6 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 V7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 V8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 V9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 V10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 V11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 V12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 V13 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Dependence 3 1 2 6 4 4 13 7 7 7 7 7 7
the group of variable itself and the other groups of
variables, which they may help to achieve.
The antecedent set consists of the group of
variable itself and the other groups of variables,
which may help in achieving it. After that, the
intersection of these sets is derived for all groups
of variables. The group of variable for which the
reachability and the intersection sets are the
same is given the top-level group of variable in
the ISM hierarchy, which would not help achieve
any other group of variable above their own level.
After the identification of the top-level group of
variable, it is discarded from the other remaining
groups of variables (Tabs. 3-8). From Tab. 3, we
can see that V7 (positional advantage) is found at
Level I. Therefore, it would be positioned at the
top of the ISM framework. This iteration is
continued until the levels of each group of
variable are found out.
Tab. 3: Iteration 1
Groups of variables Reachability set Antecedents set Intersection set Levels
V1 1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2,3 1
V2 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 2 2
V3 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 2,3 3
V4 4,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2,3,4,5,6 4
V5 4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2,3,5 5
V6 4,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2,3,6 6
V7 7 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7 I
V8 7,8 1,2,3,4,5,6,8 8
V9 7,9 1,2,3,4,5,6,9 9
V10 7,10 1,2,3,4,5,6,10 10
V11 7,11 1,2,3,4,5,6,11 11
V12 7,12 1,2,3,4,5,6,12 12
V13 7,13 1,2,3,4,5,6,13 13
Tab. 4: Iteration 2
Groups of variables Reachability set Antecedents set Intersection set Lev els
V1 1,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2,3 1 V2 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13 2 2 V3 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13 2,3 3 V4 4,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2,3,4,5,6 4 V5 4,5,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2,3,5 5 V6 4,6,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2,3,6 6
V8 8 1,2,3,4,5,6,8 8 II
V9 9 1,2,3,4,5,6,9 9 II
V10 10 1,2,3,4,5,6,10 10 II
V11 11 1,2,3,4,5,6,11 11 II
V12 12 1,2,3,4,5,6,12 12 II
Tab. 5: Iteration 3
Groups of variables Reachability set Antecedents set Intersection set Levels
V1 1,4,5,6 1,2,3 1
V2 1,2,3,4,5,6 2 2
V3 1,3,4,5,6 2,3 3
V4 4 1,2,3,4,5,6 4 III
V5 4,5 1,2,3,5 5
V6 4,6 1,2,3,6 6
Tab. 6: Iteration 3
Groups of variables Reachability set Antecedents set Intersection set Levels
V1 1,5,6 1,2,3 1
V2 1,2,3,5,6 2 2
V3 1,3,5,6 2,3 3
V5 5 1,2,3,5 5 IV
V6 6 1,2,3,6 6 IV
Table 7: Iteration 4
Groups of variables Reachability set Antecedents set Intersection set Levels
V1 1 1,2,3 1 V
V2 1,2,3 2 2
V3 1,3 2,3 3
Table 8: Iteration 5
Groups of variables Reachability set Antecedents set Intersection set Levels
V2
2,3
2
2
VI
V3
3
2,3
3
VI
The result of such iterations is ISM-based
framework for relations between adaptation and
trust on one side and positional advantage on the
other side through relationship value. It is seen in
the Fig. 2.
Results and Research Implications
The results of ISM framework validation are as
follows:
Adaptation, trust, relationship value (costs of
relationship and relationship benefits), and
positioning advantage are related research
constructs;
Adaptation, trust, costs of relationship and
relationship
benefits
are
identified
as
antecedents of positional advantage.
However this is a theoretical framework, tested
on the base of qualitative study, therefore it exists
a need for empirical testing. This further requires
development of scale for each variable identified
in the framework. To test presented model, we
will use a non-parametric approach to structural
equation modelling – partial least squares (PLS)
modelling. There are a few reasons to choose such
method of analysis. First, the framework
incorporates certain latent variables and also
comprises of one variable of dual nature, that is,
being antecedent as well as consequence at the
same time, thus the prepositions will be tested as
a standard two step approach of SEM. Second,
this study tests an explorative model with
potentially alternative hypothesis: whether
adaptation, trust and relationship value have
positive direct effects on positional advantage of
the organizations, and/or whether relationship
value moderates the impacts of adaptation and
trust on positional advantage. Third, PLS
modelling does not require multivariate normal
data. Fourth, a PLS model can be estimated using
a body of cases that is a minimum of ten times the
size of the number of constructs affecting the
dependent variable [13].
The above mentioned quantitative method will
help us identify direct and indirect effects in a
complex system of variables, and allows including
the moderating variables in the analysis easily.
References
1. Claycomb C, Frankwick GL (2010) Buyers’ perspectives of buyer-seller relationship development. Industrial Marketing Management, 39: 252-263.
2. Palmatier RW, Scheer LK, Evans KR, Arnold TJ (2008) Achieving Relationship Marketing Effectiveness in Business-to-Business Exchanges. Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2): 174-190. 3. De Wulf K, Odekerken-Schroeder, Iacobucci D
(2001) Investments in Consumer Relationships: A Cross-Country and Cross-Industry Explorations. Journal of Marketing, 65:33-50.
4. Gummesson E (1995) The New Marketing - Developing Long-Term Interactive Relationships; in: McDonald, M., Marketing Strategies; New Approaches, New Techniques. Pergamon, p. 83-101. 5. Bagozzi RP (1995) Reflections on Relationship
Marketing in Conusumer Markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23:272-277.
6. Groenroos C (1994) Quo Vadis, Marketing? Towards a Relationship Marketing Paradigm. Journal of Marketing Management, 10(1):12-15.
7. Dwyer FR, Schurr PH, Oh S (1987) Developing Buyer - Seller Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51(2): 11-27.
8. Groenroos C (1997) Value-driven relational marketing: from products to resources and competences. Journal of marketing management, 13(5):407-419.
9. Morgan RM, Hunt SD (1994) The commitment-Trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(1):20-25.
10.Ramaswami SN, Srivastava RK, Bhargava M (2009) Market-based capabilities and financial performance of firms: insights into marketing's contribution to firm value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37: 97-116.
11.Reimann M, Schilke O, Thomas JS (2010) Customer relationship management and firm performance: the mediating role of business strategy. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 38: 326-346.
12.Morgan NA (2012) Marketing and business performance. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 40: 102-119.
13.Kohtamaki M, Vesalainen J, Henneberg S, Naude P, Ventresca MJ (2012) Enabling relationship structures and relationship performance improvement: the moderating role of relational capital. Industrial Marketing Management, 41: 1298-1309.
14.Hogan JE, Lemon KN, Rust RT (2002) Customer equity management: charting new directions for the future of marketing. Journal of Service Research, 5(1): 4-12.
15.Wong C, Wilkinson IF, Young L (2010) Towards an empirically based taxonomy of buyer-seller relations in business markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38:720-737.
16.Wang Q, Bradford K, Xu J, Weitz B (2008) Creativity in buyer-seller relationships: the role of governance. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(2):109-118.
679-686.
18.Park JE, Kim J, Dubinsky AJ, Lee H (2010) How does sales force automation influence relationship quality and performance? The mediating role of learning and selling behaviors. Industrial Marketing Management, 39:1128-1138.
19.Ritter T, Walter A (2012) More is not always better: The impact of relationship functions on customer-perceived relationship value. Industrial Marketing Management, 41:136-144.
20.Voldnes G, Gronhaug K, Nilssen F (2012) Satisfaction in buyer-seller relationships – influence of cultural differences. Industrial Marketing Management, 41:1081-1093.
21.Warfield JW (1974) Developing interconnected matrices in structural modelling. IEEE Transcript on Systems, Men and Cybernetics, 4(1): 51-81. 22.Sage AP (1977) Interpretive Structural modelling:
Methodology for large-scale systems. New York: McGraw-Hill
23.Srivastava V, Singh T (2010) Value creation through relationship closeness. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 18(1): 3-17.
24.Anderson JC, Narus JA (1991) Partnering as a focused market strategy. California Management Review, 33: 95-113.
25.Cannon JP, Perreault Jr WD (1999) Buyer-seller relationships in business markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 36: 439-460.
26.Johnson JL (1999) Strategic integration in industrial distribution channels: managing the interfirm relationship as a strategic asset. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(1): 4-18. 27.Johnson JL, Sohi RS (2001) The influence of firm
predispositions on interfirm relationship formation in business markets. International Journal of research in Marketing, 18(4): 299-318.
28.Heide JB, John G (1992) Do norms matter in marketing relationships? Journal of Marketing, 56: 32-44.
29.Noordewier TG, John G, Nevin JR (1990) Performance outcomes of purchasing arrangements in industrial buyer-vendor relationships. Journal of Marketing, 54:80-93.
30.Hakansson H, Snehota IJ (1995) Developing relationships in business networks. London: Routledge.
31.Ford D (1980) Development of buyer-seller relationships in industrial markets. European Journal of Marketing,14(5-6): 339-353.
32.Hakansson H (Ed.) (1982) International Marketing and purchasing of industrial goods. Chichester: Wiley.
33.Hallen L, Johanson J, Seyed-Mohamed N (1991) Interfirm adaptation in business relationships. Journal of Marketing, 55: 29-37.
in buyer-supplier relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 28: 481-495.
35.Jeffries FL, Reed R (2000) Trust and adaptation in relational contracting. Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 873-882.
36.Cannon J, Achrol LS, Gundlach GT (2000) Contracts, norms, and plural form governance. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2): 180-194.
37.Ahmad R, Buttle F (2001) Retaining business customer through adaptation and bonding: A case study of HDoX. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 16(6/7): 553-573.
38.Canning L, Hammer-Lloyd S (2002) Modelling the adaptation process in interactive business relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17(7): 615-636.
39.Brennan R, Canning L (2004) Towards an enrichment of the IMP concept of “adaptation”. IMP Annual Conference, Copenhagen.
40.Hagberg-Anderson A (2006) Does adaptation pay off? Industrial Marketing Management, 25: 35-48. 41.Sarkar MB, Echambadi R, Cavusgil ST, Aulakh PS
(2001) The influence of complimentarily, compatibility, and relationship capital on alliance performance. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 29(4):358-373.
42.Tomkins C (2001) Interdependencies, trust and information in relationships, alliances and networks. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(2): 161-191.
43.Laaksonen T, Pajunen K, Kulmala HI (2008) Co-evolution of trust and dependence in customer-supplier relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 37:910-920.
44.Bagozzi RP (1975) Marketing as exchange, Journal of Marketing, 39(4):32-39.
45.Kotler P (2003) Marketing Management. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
46.Lindgreen A, Hingley MK, Grant DB, Morgan RE (2012) Value in business and industrial marketing: Past, present, and future. Industrial Marketing Management, 41:207-214.
47.Kotler P, Keller KL, Brady M, Goodman M, Hansen T (2009) Marketing Management, Pearson Prentice
Hall. 48.Vargo SL, Lusch RF (2004) Evolving to a new
dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1): 1-17.
49.Ford D (2011) IMP and service-dominant logic: Divergence, convergence and development. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2): 231-239. 50.Corsaro D, Snehota I (2010) Searching for
51. Geiger I, Durand A, Saab S, Kleinaltenkamp M, Baxter R, Lee Y (2012) The bonding effects of relationship value and switching costs in industrial buyer-seller relationships: An investigation into role differences. Industrial Marketing Management, 41: 82-93.
52.Anderson EW, Fornell C, Lehmann DR (1994) Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58(3): 53-66.
53.Narver JC, Slater SF (1990) The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4):20-35.
54.Porter M (1980) Competitive strategy, New York: Free Press.
55.Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120.
56.Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA (2000) Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1105-1121.
57.Wittmann CM, Hunt SD, Arnett DB (2009) Explaining alliance success: competences, resources, relational factors, and resource-advantage theory. Industrial Marketing Management, 38:743-756. 58.Kohli AK, Jaworski BJ (1990) Market orientation:
the construct, research propositions and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2):1-18. 59.Hollensen S (2010) Marketing Management: A
Relationship Approach. New York: Prentice Hall. 60.Hunt S, Morgan RM (1995) The comparative
advantage theory of competition. Journal of Marketing, 59(2): 1-15.
